Archives for category: Republicans
« Older Entries

The Night Texas Turned Blue, Really, Truly Blue

By dianeravitch
November 4, 2026 //
14

As a native Texan, I am beyond thrilled by the election results. It was a night for the history books. All the statewide offices were won by Democrats–Lieutenant Governor, Attorney General, Comptroller, and “Railroad Commissioner” (who regulates the powerful oil and gas industry).

No Democrat had been elected to the U.S. Senate since 1988. No Democrat had won a statewide office since 1994. The gerrymander that Trump asked for and got was washed away in a tide of blue. Four of the five gerrymandered Congressional districts–designed to be safe Republican seats–were captured by Democrats. The races that were supposed to be close–for US Senate and for Governor–were total blowouts. The only unknown is whether one or both houses of the legislature remain in Republican hands.

Forrest Wilder of Texas Monthly has the story:

I’ve covered every election in Texas since 2006. Tuesday night’s results are, by far, the most shocking I’ve ever seen. For my whole adult life, the script has been more or less the same for Texas elections: Republicans win, Democrats lose. In recent years, the story has been about the GOP civil war: the far right winning and the Republican establishment retreating in defeat. The governance story was also predictable: Those in power did what they wanted and everyone else suffered what they must. That timeworn script was ripped up in just a few hours. 

A good night for Democrats was certainly indicated by the usual metrics—polling, prediction markets, reporting, and vibes. I thought Talarico would win by a few percentage points. But I’m not sure anyone was prepared for the alternative universe we’ve just entered. Texas went to bed as a red state—the red state. Wednesday morning, it will wake up as something very, very different. 

Republicans are on track to lose every statewide race. Governor Greg Abbott, a fundraising juggernaut who was on the verge of becoming the longest-serving governor? Trounced by state representative Gina Hinojosa. Ken Paxton, who seemed to possess some kind of superpower? Devastated by James Talarico, now an instant superstar and presidential contender. Mayes Middleton, who insisted on calling himself “MAGA” Mayes? Whupped by Dallas state senator Nathan Johnson, a virtual unknown. Lieutenant Governor Dan Patrick, one of the most adept politicians in modern Texas history? Humiliated by Austin-based state representative Vikki Goodwin, who barely had a profile in her hometown. Openly racist edgelord Bo French? Beaten by Jon Rosenthal. Democrats seem to be on track to flip all four of the Texas Supreme Court seats up for grabs, dramatically changing the balance of power on Texas’s highest civil court. As of right now, it looks like Democrats may have a majority in the Texas House for the first time since 2002. In short, they won everywhere.  

Democrats ran up the score in the big urban counties. They flipped longtime red suburban counties, including Denton and Collin (Paxton’s home county) and Brazoria. They ran riot through heavily Hispanic areas that Trump had flipped in 2024. Just as one example, Starr County—96 percent Hispanic—went from voting for a Republican for the first time since 1892, when they gave Trump 57 percent of the vote, to giving Talarico more than 75 percent of the vote. Paxton and Abbott and the other statewide candidates begged for rural Texas to turn out. But even in rural counties, Democrats did better than they normally do. The red wall was breached quite handily. Shit, they even won Brazos County in the heart of Aggieland.

Trump ordered up an aggressive gerrymander, to try to give the GOP five more winnable seats. But the dummymander seems to have gone bust. They tried to stimulate the lizard brains of voters, fearmongering about Muslims. But that tack fell flat. The richest man in the world, Elon Musk, wasted an ocean of cash—at least $212 million—trying to salvage Paxton. Now, he’s talking about taking his data centers to space.

It seems like Texans went into the voting booth with a vengeance, voting against anyone with an R next to their names. Let’s not take anything away from the winners. Talarico was a very strong candidate—charismatic, disciplined, an excellent fundraiser who had few, if any, major errors. Hinojosa, too, surprised a lot of observers with her creative attacks on Abbott. She was vastly outspent, but managed to land blows on Abbott over data centers, private school vouchers, and the cloud of corruption that seems to be parked over the Governor’s Mansion. But it’s also probably the case that just about any Democrat would’ve won in this environment. Trump was deeply unpopular in Texas—his approval rating was underwater by about twenty percentage points. There was a blue tsunami that swept over much of the nation, and Texas was part of it.

And yet, there likely were Texas-specific factors, too. Paxton and Hinojosa ran on an anti-corruption platform. They told a story about Texas: that the ruling political class had sold the state out to billionaires. Facts were not hard to marshal to drive the message home. Abbott’s signature policy during his twelve years as governor was private-school vouchers, which seemed to have little popular support but was a pet project of various billionaires, including Pennsylvania’s Jeff Yass, who gave Abbott at least $12 million. And just in the closing days of his campaign, Texas Monthly reported that Abbott’s Texas Parks and Wildlife Commission had discussed selling Boca Chica State Park to Musk. There were the data centers that Abbott welcomed with open arms, and the 765-kV transmission lines. And what more can be said about Ken Paxton? Corrupt, unethical, swagless. In retrospect, the question is, how did this man stay in power for so long? 

It will take some time to adjust to the new reality. The basic set of assumptions that have been operative in Texas for decades are now called into question. One is tempted to say one-party rule is over. Yet, somehow we’ve entered a new era of one-party rule. Regardless of your political persuasion, did you ever expect to see Democrats winning races in Texas from top to bottom in 2026? The parlor question—”when will Texas turn blue?”—had long ago become a cliche, a sick joke. And yet here we are. 

Categories Accountability, Democracy, Democrats, Education Reform, Republicans, Texas, Vouchers

Yes! Democrats Win Control of Both Houses of Congress!

By dianeravitch
November 4, 2026 //
11

Yes! Voters listened to Trump, who told them to pretend he was on the ballot. And they voted accordingly. Voters elected enough Democrats to hand control of the Senate and the House of Representatives to Democrats.

Voters voted against high prices on consumer goods like groceries and gasoline, against the brutality of ICE, against Trump’s vicious deportation of law-abiding immigrants, against corruption.

Exciting news:

Georgia elected Keisha Lance Bottoms, the first Black Governor of Georgia. And the first woman.

Dr. Annie Andrews won Lindsey Graham’s Senate seat in South Carolina, beating his sister, who was selected by Trump. Think of it: South Carolina elected a Democratic Senator!

Dr. Amy Acton defeated Vivek Ramaswamy for Governor of Ohio.

Susan Collins lost her Senate seat in Maine to Democrat Troy Jackson.

Iowa and Kansas elected Democratic senators. Kansas has not elected a Democratic Senator since 1932!

As I went to sleep at 3 a.m. this morning, the Mississippi Senate race was tied. With 97% of the vote counted, Democrat Scott Colom was leading the incumbent Cindy Hyde-Smith by 28 votes. Colom is Black; Hyde-Smith is a Confederate. Mississippi!

The voters imagined that Trump and his idiotic, malicious administration were on the ballot, and they responded by giving Democrats control of Congress.

For me, the biggest news of the night was the election in Texas. Democrats won the the two big prizes: James Talarico crushed Ken Paxton to win the Senate seat. Gina Hinojosa won a decisive victory over Greg Abbott for Governor. I am hoarse from cheering and screaming.

The three biggest losers were:

  1. Trump: he asked voters to make this election a referendum on him. They did. He lost.
  2. Elon Musk: Musk moved his SpaceX business to Texas because of Greg Abbbott’s low-tax, business-friendly policies. He escaped California’s high taxes and the possibility of a billionaire’s tax. he put almost $500 million into Republican PACs. The candidates who benefited most from his money were Ken Paxton, Greg Abbott, and Vivek Ramaswamy. All of them lost. Elon Musk wasted almost $500 million in his campaign gifts.
  3. The pollsters: They were right in predicting a blue wave. I followed only one state closely, and that was Texas. The pollsters consistently underrated both Talarico and Hinojosa. Not by a little but by a lot. In the polls, Talarico usually had a lead of 2-3 points, and some pollsters showed him losing to Paxton. Gina Hinojosa occasionally led Abbott by 2 points in the polls, but most polls showed her losing to Abbott. How wrong could they be? Talarico and Hinojosa won by huge margins–not 1 or 2%, but decisive margins.Not a single pollster predicted a complete blowout in Texas.

Last night was a seismic shift in American politics. Trump’s power crumbled. Democrats can investigate the crimes and corruption of the Trump administration. Trump can’t get another Supreme Court nominee through the Senate, unless he tries to shove one through before January 1.

It’s a new day.

Categories Accountability, Democracy, Democrats, Elections, Politics, Republicans

Robert Reich: Which Side Are You On?

By dianeravitch
November 3, 2026 //
6

Robert Reich, former Secretary of Labor, says that the central issue in the midterm elections is whether to continue the enrichment of the richest or to bolster the well-being of the rest of the citizenry.,

He writes:

Friends,

America makes its choice November 3.

It’s not really a choice between two parties. After all, a record 45 percent of American voters now call themselves “independent” and don’t align with either party. And most of us who still describe ourselves as Republicans or Democrats don’t have much love for whichever party we’re registered with. 

Nor will it be a choice between the “left” and the “right,” as those terms have been used for the last half-century — representing preferences by the left for more and bigger social safety nets and by the right for lower taxes. These days, big business wants more government in the form of subsidies, bailouts, no-bid government contracts, and a giant military-technology state. 

The real choice is between ever more concentrated wealth and power at the top — in the billionaire class, tech bros, Wall Street, and the C-suites of giant corporations — versus more wealth and power in what used to be the American working middle class. 

That’s what the “affordability crisis” is all about. It also underlies America’s growing concern about corruption. 

For the last few weeks it’s looked as if America was about to choose the second path, for The People and against Big Money. 

But Big Money is now striking back. Elon Musk is pouring hundreds of millions into supporting Republican candidates, as are Big Crypto, AIPAC, AI, and Trump’s MAGA Inc. (and its related super PACs). 

“Dark money” — anonymous campaign donations flowing through so-called “nonprofits,” mostly from wealthy individuals and CEOs — is also dropping into the system. 

Democratic candidates are being outspent 2-to-1 by super PACs and megadonors. More than in any midterm since the Supreme Court’s shameful Citizens United decision, Big Money is going almost exclusively to the GOP. The Supreme Court has given Republicans an additional spending advantage by allowing super PACs to work in close cooperation with candidates.

Texas’s James Talarico hasn’t taken any corporate PAC money, for example, and has an army of volunteers going door to door for him and has accumulated one of the largest small-donor war chests of any candidate in this election cycle. But his opponent, Ken Paxton, is relying almost entirely on $158 million he’s got from Musk via a Republican super PAC.

This enormous gusher of Big Money for Republicans has no regulatory oversight because the Federal Election Commission has no quorum and therefore can’t function. 

At the state level, Big Money is attacking ballot measures to increase taxes on the super-rich — such as California’s Proposition 40, a one-time 5 percent tax on billionaires. Google multibillionaire Sergey Brin is sinking hundreds of millions into defeating it. Gavin Newsom also opposes it. But another California presidential hopeful, Ro Khanna, is pushing for it, to his great credit. (Note to California voters: Vote YES on 40 and NO on the poison pills, Props 41 and 42.)

This election is the clearest contest yet between Big Money and The People. Spending by super PACs and other megadonors in the current midterms is over 50 percent higher than in the 2022 midterms, in inflation-adjusted dollars. 

I wish I were more confident that The People will prevail. Democrats are doing well in the polls, but polling is flawed when it comes to the influence of Big Money. Many so-called “low-information” voters are more likely to be swayed by media advertising and less likely to respond to polls or tell pollsters truthfully how they intend to vote. 

When this is over, if the Democrats take back the House and at least come close to retaking control of the Senate, high on their agenda must be seeking to get Big Money out of our politics — via constitutional amendment or public financing of elections (matching small-dollar donations). And also going after the source of much of the Big Money by enacting a national wealth tax. 

In the meantime: stay calm, support good candidates, do whatever you can to get out the vote, and vote as soon as you can.

Categories Billionaires, Corruption, Democracy, Elections, Republicans, Trump

Adam Kinzinger: Do Not Let Elon Musk Buy OUR Government!

By dianeravitch
October 30, 2026 //
2

Adam Kinzinger, former member of Congress, writes powerfully here about the most dangerous threat to our democracy: the super-rich who fund politicians to buy government contracts and/or to determine policy decisions.

Kinzinger was a Republican Congressman from Illinois and a military veteran. He and Liz Cheney were the only Republican members of the January 6 Commission. They knew they would pay a price. Cheney lost her Congressional seat in Wyoming to a Trump-aligned conservative. Kinzinger retired from Congress.

He writes here about the importance of limiting the power of wealthy individuals in politics.

Both parties are susceptible to the lure of big campaign contributions. Democrats and Republicans have accepted money from AIPAC to shape government policy toward Israel.

Trump openly courted specific industries to give money to his campaign in exchange for favorable policies. He promised to protect the fossil fuel industry if they gave significant sums to his campaign. As president, he has delivered. He opened protected federal lands to drilling and has canceled government contracts for wind power and other alternative sources of energy. He has encouraged the revival of coal mining. He has gutted environmental regulations to allow pollution of water and the air. A payback to his donors.

And then there is the case of Elon Musk. He has become the richest man in the world with the help of munificent government contracts. In the past few years, he has deployed his riches to try to buy the government and its policies.

Adam Kinzinger details here the case for getting big money out of politics, or at least limiting its power to buy the government it wants.

He writes:

Last Wednesday, the richest man in the world logged on to the social media platform he owns and issued an ominous threat.

“Live by the sword, die by the sword,” Elon Musk wrote. “Those who pick fights with me should understand that I will find out who is really pulling the strings and come for them, not just their puppets…”

What set him off was a story in Politico reporting that if Democrats win control of Congress next week, they plan to investigate him: his time running DOGE, the federal contracts his companies hold, and reports that he ordered Starlink service slowed for Ukraine’s military. When journalist Kara Swisher suggested on her podcast that he could end up facing legal trouble, he shot back that she “really wants to go to prison.”

To recap, a man whose company is paid billions of dollars by the federal government is warning members of Congress that if they look into how he got that money, he will come after them, and after whoever he decides is behind them.

And he isn’t just posting. He’s paying.

The Wall Street Journal captured it in a single chart. One line belongs to George Soros, the liberal megadonor who has spent the better part of two decades as the right’s favorite villain. It climbs slowly, step by step, over more than twenty years, to roughly $624 million. The other line belongs to Musk. For twenty years, it sits flat at zero. Then, around 2024, it turns and shoots almost straight up, past Soros, to roughly $759 million. Two decades of Soros, overtaken in about two years.

Image

Graph courtesy of the Wall Street Journal.

According to a Washington Post analysis of federal filings, Musk has now put about $446 million into this year’s midterm elections alone. That’s the most any individual donor has ever given. It’s well beyond the roughly $290 million he spent electing Donald Trump in 2024. In September, he gave $158 million to the main super PAC backing Republican Senate candidates in just two checks. He’s put another $10 million into a group backing Ken Paxton in Texas.

We have never seen anything like this. And we absolutely should not accept it.

Money has distorted American politics for a long time, and both parties have their megadonors. I spent years in Congress watching how much time members spent dialing for dollars instead of doing their jobs, and how much influence followed the checks. If you’ve ever felt like Washington listens more to the people with money than to people like you, you’re not imagining it. That’s why broad campaign finance reform is needed.

I also believe companies and the people who run them have a right to take part in our political process. That’s part of living in a free country. This column isn’t about that.

This is about something different, and it’s much more dangerous.

Buying the Government That Pays You

Elon Musk isn’t just the richest man in the world. He got there, in large part, with the help of the American taxpayer. SpaceX has received more than $20 billion in federal contracts, with NASA and the Pentagon among its biggest customers. Starlink has become essential infrastructure for our military and our allies. His companies depend on decisions made by the very government he’s now spending hundreds of millions of dollars to shape.

Think about what that means. The man whose company is paid billions by the federal government is spending a fortune to decide who runs the federal government. The senators he helps elect will vote on defense budgets that include his contracts. The agencies that regulate his companies answer to the president he helped put in office. Even if every one of those decisions were made in good faith, how could anyone know?

Here’s the part most people don’t realize: we already decided, decades ago, that this kind of thing is wrong.

For more than 75 years, federal law has barred government contractors from making political contributions. The whole point is to avoid even the appearance that taxpayer-funded contracts are for sale. Courts have upheld that ban even as they’ve struck down other campaign finance laws. Regulators have enforced it against contractors who tried to give to super PACs.

So how is Musk allowed to do this? Because of a loophole. The ban covers the company holding the contract, and federal regulators read it narrowly. In their view, Musk’s spending doesn’t count, because it comes from him as an individual rather than from SpaceX or Tesla. The company can’t spend a dime.

But the man who controls the company can spend nearly half a billion dollars in a single election.

Sell to It or Buy It. Not Both.

I support sweeping campaign finance reform. But the fix for this particular problem isn’t radical, and we don’t have to start from scratch because some states already do it.

New Jersey has a pay-to-play law that doesn’t stop at the company holding the contract. It covers the company’s principal owners, officers, and directors, and anyone who controls 10 percent or more of the business.

Connecticut goes further, covering any shareholder with a stake of 5 percent or more.

Both laws were passed after real scandals, by legislators who saw what happens when contracts and campaign cash get tangled together. And they’ve worked. New Jersey’s own election watchdog said its law was achieving exactly what it was meant to do: reducing political contributions from the people doing business with the government.

Congress should do the same thing at the federal level. Extend the existing contractor ban to cover the owners, executives, and major shareholders of companies that take big federal contracts. Apply it to everyone, on the left and the right, no matter which party they support.

Nobody needs to take anything away from Elon Musk. This is just a very reasonable choice: if you want to keep selling to the United States government, you don’t get to buy it too. If you’d rather spend unlimited money on elections, you’re free to stop bidding on taxpayer contracts.

Pick one.

What Money Can’t Buy

Elon Musk can buy a lot of things. He can buy television ads in every market in America. He can buy a social media platform and tilt it toward the candidates he likes. He can fund a get-out-the-vote operation bigger than some political parties.

What he can’t buy is your vote. Not unless you let him.

A week from now, Americans will decide this election, not Elon Musk. Every ad he pays for still has to convince a person. Every dollar he spends still has to get past the voter in the booth. That’s the one place in American democracy where the richest man in the world and a retired schoolteacher in Ohio count exactly the same.

So show up. Bring someone with you. And then let’s get to work making sure that no one, no matter how rich, can ever again buy the government that pays them.

— Adam

Categories Accountability, Billionaires, Corruption, Democracy, Democrats, Deregulation, Elections, Environment, Ethics, Failure, For-Profit, Fraud, Funding, Musk, Elon, Republicans, Trump

Politifact Rates Video Attacking Talarico as a Pedophile to be AI Fake, Generated by Russian Bot

By dianeravitch
October 23, 2026 //
6

When Republicans start losing, they get desperate and spread lies. The best lies are created by Russian bots. Politifact rated a vile video attacking Talarico as a pedophile as an AI fake.

Politifact reported:

This video shows a former James Talarico student accusing him of misconduct.

Pants on Fire!

2026 MIDTERMSARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCETEXASX POSTS

Democratic U.S. Senate candidate Texas state Rep. James Talarico arrives at a campaign event in Plano, Texas, on Oct. 18, 2026. (AP)
Democratic U.S. Senate candidate Texas state Rep. James Talarico arrives at a campaign event in Plano, Texas, on Oct. 18, 2026. (AP)

By Jeff Cercone
October 22, 2026

Russian disinformation group targets James Talarico with baseless claim in AI-generated video

IF YOUR TIME IS SHORT

  • The Russian disinformation campaign known as Storm-1516 used artificial intelligence to create a video that impersonated a real man, and claimed it showed a former student accusing James Talarico of misconduct, researchers say.
  • The account that initially shared the video was created in September and is based in Romania, NewsGuard reported.

See the sources for this fact-check

A social media video purporting to show a former student accusing Texas Democratic U.S. Senate candidate James Talarico of sexual misconduct is the latest example of how Russian groups are generating false information to influence U.S. elections, researchers say.

As of Oct. 22, X had suspended the account that originally posted the baseless claim, but other accounts have since shared it. NewsGuard, a company that tracks online misinformation, reported that X said the account was created in September with Romania as the signup country. 

Talarico spokesperson JT Ennis issued an emailed statement to PolitiFact about the video.

“The most powerful people in the world know they can’t beat James Talarico with the truth, so they’re slandering him with AI deepfakes, foreign bots, and conspiracy theories to protect their broken, corrupt political system,” Ennis said.

What we know about the video’s origin

Darren Linvill, a Clemson University professor and head of its Media Forensic Hub, said the video is the work of Storm-1516, a Russian propaganda campaign he said made a similar baseless attack on Minnesota Democratic Gov. Tim Walz in 2024 when Walz ran for vice president. In 2024, the group used a paid actor from West Africa to attack Walz, Linvill said.

Linvill said this video was generated to look like a real man who has an account on another platform. The video shows a man claiming to have been a former student of Talarico at Rhodes Middle School in San Antonio, Texas, where Talarico taught Language Arts before his political career as a state representative.

Graphika, a social media analytics company, said in a blog post that the X account that originally shared the video “very likely” impersonated a Facebook user by the same name. That person lives in Texas and was a former student of Talarico. The man has praised Talarico on his Facebook page on several occasions, as recently as February, Graphika noted.

Fact-checkers at Lead Stories spoke with that man and he said the video is not of him, and denied accusing Talarico of misconduct. PolitiFact reached out to him via Facebook, but he didn’t immediately respond. PolitiFact’s review of the man’s Facebook page found no video of him accusing Talarico.

NewsGuard reported that the videos had many signs of AI generation, such as unnatural eye movements and stagnant facial expressions, and that an AI detection tool showed a 98% likelihood of being a deepfake. A deepfake is a machine generated image or video that changes faces, bodies or voices, making people appear to do and say things that they never did or said. 

Graphika said social media accounts known to amplify Storm-1516 content and several accounts from U.S. conservatives shared the video. It said a prominent Storm-1516 amplifier, SGAnon, originally shared the video, then deleted it, writing on X that an analysis showed it was “artificially generated.”

The Russian disinformation playbook

Linvill said Storm-1516 typically uses the same influencers to spread false narratives into political conversations.

“If you examine the recent content of the influencers who first shared this narrative you can easily identify other Storm-1516 lies,” Linvill said. “We believe they are paid to do this. In the same way marketing companies pay influencers to share products, the Russians pay influencers to share lies.”

The New York Times recently reported that Russia and other foreign governments have stepped up efforts to influence U.S. elections, mostly targeting Democrats.

Linvill co-wrote a recent report about Storm-1516 and its work targeting Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy and found such campaigns often are not aimed at changing people’s behavior or opinions, but seek to shape public discourse.

He said the study’s findings apply to this baseless Talarico narrative.

“By entrenching people in this view of Talarico, the Russians likely hope to exacerbate extreme partisanship and also encourage people to get off the couch and vote for Ken Paxton,” Linvill said. “People who already like Talarico are going to dismiss this claim as the obvious fake it is, but they aren’t the audience.”

We rate the claim that this video shows Talarico’s former student accusing him of misconduct Pants on Fire! 

Our Sources

X post, Oct. 20, 2026

X post, Oct. 21, 2026

X post, Oct. 22, 2026

X post, Oct. 22, 2026

SGAnon, X post, Oct. 20, 2026

Facebook post, Feb. 14, 2026

Facebook post, May 25, 2021

Facebook page

NewsGuard, Russian Deepfake Accuses Talarico of Sexually Abusing Student, Oct. 21, 2026

Lead Stories, Fact Check: FAKE Video Shows Man Claiming to Be Ex-Student of Democratic Senate Nominee James Talarico — Real Zyon Lewis Says It Is Not Him, Oct. 21, 2026

Darren Linvill, Professor, Clemson University Media Forensics Hub, X posts, Oct. 21, 2026

Darren Linvill, Professor, Clemson University Media Forensics Hub, email interview, Oct. 22, 2026

PNAS, State- sponsored agenda setting: Measuring the impact of narrative laundering, Aug. 3, 2026 

Graphika, research brief shared with PolitiFact, Oct. 22, 2026

Graphika, Storm-1516 Produces Very Likely Deepfake Videos of Student Accusing Democratic Senate Candidate of Sexual Assault, Oct. 21, 2026

Alethea spokesperson, email interview, Oct. 22, 2026

The Gnida Project, X post, Oct. 21, 2026 

Agence France-Presse, Tim Walz targeted by unfounded sexual abuse claim, Oct. 21, 2024

The New York Times, Russia Appears to Step Up Efforts to Influence U.S. Voters, Oct. 16, 2026

Categories Accountability, Corruption, Ethics, Evil, Extremism, Fake News, Fraud, Hoax, International, Lies, Republicans

Russian Bots Are at It Again, Trying to Sway Our Elections

By dianeravitch
October 22, 2026 //
2

Google posted the following unusual warning. The main sources are The New York Times, a YouTube video posted by Bloomberg News, and stories on MSNOW.

The warning asserted that Russian intelligence is deep into a campaign to sway the midterms in Trump’s favor, acknowledging his special relationship with Russian dictator Putin. That relationship was cemented by Trump’s latest deal to eliminate sanctions on Russian oil, to pour billions into the Russian economy, and to turn his back on Ukraine.

Google sent out the following warning:

Russia is deploying a highly sophisticated “army of bots” and generative AI to flood social media networks with fabricated videos, deepfakes, and targeted propaganda aimed at disrupting the upcoming November 3, 2026, U.S. midterm elections. [1, 2]

According to U.S. intelligence officials and recent independent research, Moscow’s primary goals are to inject chaos, undermine faith in democratic institutions, target Democratic candidates in key swing states, and weaken international support for Ukraine. [1, 2, 3]

Key Tactics and Operations

1. The “Matrioska” Drone Warfare Strategy

  • Automated Bot Swarms: A Russian disinformation network nicknamed Matrioska has been filling platforms like X (formerly Twitter) with fake election content. [1]
  • The Cycle: When researchers identify these accounts, X suspends them—but the network automatically replaces them with new dormant or artificial profiles. Experts describe this persistent replacement loop as the “disinformation equivalent of drone warfare”. [1]
  • Artificial Engagement: These bots rapidly inflate view counts on fabricated posts to make fake stories appear as though they are trending naturally. [1, 2]

2. AI-Generated Deepfakes & Impersonations

  • Celebrity Splice Fakes: Disinformation operators are pushing out AI-fabricated video clips of famous actors and musicians (including Robert De Niro, Julia Roberts, and Cher) appearing to attack political figures under campaigns like #AllDemocratsAreCriminals. [1]
  • Impersonating Major Media: U.S. intelligence reports that Russian covert campaigns are creating highly accurate clones of reputable Western news outlets like CNN, the BBC, and The New York Times to spread fake news articles and targeted character attacks against Senate candidates. [1, 2]
  • Commercial AI Misuse: Adversaries are reportedly utilizing commercial generative AI models, such as OpenAI’s ChatGPT and Anthropic’s Claude, to efficiently script and map out massive propaganda pipelines at an unprecedented speed. [1]

3. Integration into State Infrastructure

  • Cloud Infrastructure Consolidation: Security officials emphasize that Moscow has successfully integrated its state intelligence agencies with commercial cloud computing assets. This marks a shift from isolated “troll farms” (like the old Internet Research Agency) to a consolidated state digital ecosystem capable of massive scale.
  • Custom Bias Targeting: The Russian Foreign Intelligence Service (SVR) has been linked to programs designed to bypass traditional advertisement blocks by embedding customized, AI-driven propaganda directly into personal communication apps based on an individual voter’s specific biases. [1, 2]

To understand the warning, begin by watching the YouTube video posted by Bloomberg News.

Much of this material was based on a story in The New York Times about Russia’s election interference. This is a gift article. You can read it without a subscription.

Written by veteran intelligence reporters, it begins:

The Russian government has been targeting Americans with covert online disinformation operations seeking to undermine public confidence in November’s midterm elections, using a familiar playbook in an attempt to inject chaos into the voting season, according to U.S. officials familiar with the matter.

Classified U.S. intelligence assessments from recent months have determined that the Kremlin has again authorized a digital influence campaign to peddle content across social media in hopes of seeding or amplifying domestic divisions around the election season, the officials said.

The assessments did not find evidence of attempts to take aim at voting machinery in a way that could compromise the actual voting process, the officials added. The officials, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to discuss classified information, did not specify the efforts to influence attitudes online. But experts in Russian disinformation have spotted some social media campaigns in recent weeks that use artificial intelligence to create fake videos of Hollywood celebrities talking about key battleground Senate races.

The disinformation campaign appeared to be less extensive or coordinated than at least some of Russia’s prior efforts in American elections, some of the officials said. Since 2016, the Kremlin has initiated online influence operations in every American federal election cycle, according to previously declassified assessments. The officials added that U.S. spy agencies see Moscow as less interested in midterm races than in presidential contests and as distracted by its grinding war with Ukraine.

Still, the push to inflame the electorate comes as President Trump has repeatedly sought to challenge the integrity of American democracy. In July, Mr. Trump gave a televised prime-time address on election security in which he claimed there were severe vulnerabilities in U.S. voting systems and accused American officials of a yearslong “cover-up” to conceal efforts by China and others to influence elections.

He has instructed a task force to declassify documents purporting to support his narratives of rampant voter fraud and foreign tampering, but those files, which were heavily redacted, did not reveal major new weaknesses in the country’s election systems or show that foreign governments had manipulated any votes.

Some of the officials said the main goal of the Russian influence operations appeared to be to sow chaos rather than aid one particular party, though the examples that independent disinformation researchers in recent weeks have attributed to Russia have exclusively attacked Democratic candidates in swing states.

The White House, the Office of the Director of National Intelligence and the Russian Embassy did not respond to requests for comment. Russia has historically denied U.S. allegations of election meddling.

Some intelligence assessments have also found that Iran, too, may engage in influence operations around the November election as well, the officials said, though little activity had been documented in classified channels that traced to Tehran. The country, which has been locked in a war with the United States since February, sought to spread propaganda undermining Mr. Trump in the 2020 and 2024presidential elections, and officials said it was reasonable to expect the regime to do so again….

In 2016, President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia ordered a multipronged interference effort that sought to denigrate Hillary Clinton, the Democratic nominee, and bolster the electoral prospects of her Republican rival, Mr. Trump, U.S. spy agencies concluded. Multiple audits of those intelligence findings, including a multiyear investigation by the Republican-led Senate Intelligence Committee, corroborated those conclusions.

Researchers in Europe and the United States who track Russian disinformation campaigns have seen recent signs of Russian activity. In two separate waves over the past week, a network previously linked to Kremlin trolls posted a series of videos on X and BlueSky that appeared to rely on A.I. to churn out baseless claims against Democrats running for Senate in closely contested races. Elements of the campaign were reported earlier by MS NOW.

The posts attacked the candidates using themes that Mr. Trump and the Republican Party have relied on to disparage Democrats, including accusations of corruption, antisemitism and support for gay and transgender rights.

Please open the article to finish reading this important article.

Categories Disruption, Elections, Fake News, International, Media, Propaganda, Republicans, Trump

Excuse Me While I Keep a Close Watch on Texas

By dianeravitch
October 19, 2026 //
5

Over the next couple of weeks, I will write several pieces about the upcoming election in Texas. More than any other state. I will explain why.

First of all, I was born there, and I’m tired of Texas being a laughing stock. Texans are better than that.

Second, if Texas flips blue, it will be a political earthquake. The state has been owned by oil and gas billionaires for decades. It’s time for a change. It’s time for leaders who care for the people of Texas, not the 1%.

Third, Texas has two great candidates in James Talarico and Gina Hinojosa. Talarico is a religious man, actually a seminarian, who speaks eloquently about our obligations to one another. Gina Hinojosa is running to give the regular people of Texas a voice.

Fourth, Gina understands the sham of Abbott’s “vouchers for all” program. She has pledged to roll back the voucher scheme and invest in the state’s public schools, where almost 90% of the state’s 5.5 million children are enrolled. Under the voucher regime, rural schools are at risk of closing. Gina will fire State Commissioner of Education Mike Morath, who has used his power to take control of entire urban districts, despite the well-documented history of the failure of state takeovers.

Fingers crossed for a new day in Texas, free of the control of billionaires, corrupt politicians, and grifters.

Categories Billionaires, Budget Cuts, Education Reform, Funding, Privatization, Republicans, Rural Schools, School Choice, Separation of church and state, Students, Supporting public schools, Texas, Vouchers

Heather Cox Richardson: The Plot to Disenfranchise Millions of Voters This Fall

By dianeravitch
September 2, 2026 //
3

Trump is obsessed with stopping mail-in Voting, although he votes by mail. He has spent his time in office sowing doubt in our elections, which are the basis of our democracy. The very fact that this crooked con man was returned to the Presidency makes me doubt the security of our elections.

Nonetheless, a whistleblower at the United States Postal Service leaked a complaint claiming that the USPS is planning to take measures that will throw the midterms into chaos, thus giving Trump a reason to discredit the expected Blue Wave, which will sweep away Republican majorities in the House and possibly the Senate. In brief, Trump intends to use the USPS to determine which votes count. Bear in mind that the Cinstututuin explicitly assigns responsibility to the states, not the federal government.

The actions Trump is taking to discredit the midterm elections are unprecedented. But then so was his demolition of the East Wing of the White House, so are his efforts to control the media, universities, and law firms. So are his efforts to overturn civil rights laws. So is his defunding of medical and scientific research. So are his attacks on freedom of the press. So are his efforts to control the curriculum of the nation’s schools.

Heather Cox Richardson explains:

Yesterday, by a vote of 5–4, the United States Supreme Court allowed Trump to continue to build his ballroom. The five right-wing justices concluded that the National Trust for Historic Preservation, which had sued to stop the construction of the ballroom, did not have legal standing to sue and that national security considerations came down on the side of construction.

The majority said it was not resolving the issue of whether the project is legal.

It was Chief Justice John Roberts who covered that aspect of the controversy. He wrote in dissent that the project is “likely unlawful.” “The White House is an iconic American building whose symbolism and history are wrapped up in its architecture,” Roberts wrote. He wrote that it is critical to “ensure that those responsible follow the rules in deciding what to tear down and what to build up at the People’s House.”

Nonetheless, as Josh Gerstein of Politico reported, the project will likely be completed before the question of its legality is resolved.

Trump’s behavior in his second term is a logical outcome of the theory of the “unitary executive.” Under President Ronald Reagan in the 1980s, those eager to stop Congress from passing legislation that benefited the American people at the expense of businessmen began to argue for the idea that because the president was the head of one of the three branches of the U.S. government, he could not be checked by either of the other two branches: the legislative branch (Congress) or the judicial branch (the courts).

On July 1, 2024, the United States Supreme Court, stacked with Trump’s appointees, took this theory to a conclusion that overturned the central premise of American democracy: that no one is above the law.

It decided that the president of the United States has “absolute immunity” from criminal prosecution for crimes committed as part of the official acts at the core of presidential powers. The court also said it should be presumed that the president also has immunity for other official acts as well, unless that prosecution would not intrude on the authority of the executive branch.

Writing for the majority, Chief Justice Roberts said that a president needs such immunity to make sure the president is willing to take “bold and unhesitating action” and make unpopular decisions, although no previous president ever asserted that he was above the law or that he needed such immunity to fulfill his role. Roberts’s decision didn’t focus at all on the interest of the American people in guaranteeing that presidents carry out their duties within the guardrails of the law.

This permission structure appears to have convinced Trump he can do whatever he wishes, including rigging elections so he cannot lose.

Yesterday Senator Richard Blumenthal (D-CT) of the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs, who is the top-ranking Democrat on the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations, exposed what appears to be a plot to steal the 2026 midterm elections.

Blumenthal released a letter he had written to Postmaster General David Steiner calling attention to an official whistleblower report, which he attached to the letter.

It’s eye-popping.

The whistleblower warns that there are “potentially catastrophic problems in the development of the United States Postal Service’s…new system for handling federal election ballot mail.” According to the whistleblower, the “process for the creation and implementation of an entirely new and untested set of IT systems” for delivering ballots to voters for the midterm election has been “secretive, rushed, chaotic, and fundamentally flawed.”

The whistleblower says “the administration has hidden the high likelihood that the new ballot mail verification processes will result in major disruptions in mail ballots ever getting delivered to voters. As presently designed, if even one bar code on one single ballot in a bulk-mailing of 10,000 ballots fails to properly scan during the verification process, the entire batch is rejected and sent back to the state—effectively stopping the ballots from being mailed to voters.”

The complaint continues: “Even under ordinary circumstances this would be problematic because of predictable errors in any barcode scanning process.” But the rushed IT development of the new system means it “will almost certainly have significant operating problems when released to the public.” The whistleblower notes that multiple officials from the USPS have described the development process for the system as “a sh*t show.”

The whistleblower said that work on the “USPS election ballot mail IT project” began in June 2026 and has continued despite an injunction from a federal court ordering work on it to stop. Normally, it would take “nine months to a year or more” to roll out a project “of this complexity, magnitude, and importance.” Considering the rush and the consequences, the whistleblower wondered “whether catastrophic failure would be a feature rather than a bug.”

The complaint says: “The apparently sloppy and rushed manner in which the Federal Ballot Mail Portal and supporting IT systems are being built poses significant risk. Potentially millions of American voters may not receive their mail-in ballot this election cycle in a timely manner, or at all.”

Blumenthal noted that the USPS has a restrained role as a mail carrier. It has never before played a gatekeeping function and yet is now building an entirely new system to put itself “in a position to refuse to mail ballots that state election officials have determined should be sent out.” He called for Postmaster General Steiner to “to abandon this ill-conceived, unconscionable plan and ensure that all Americans can exercise their constitutional right to vote, including by mail, without interference by USPS.”

Blumenthal demanded Steiner answer no later than Friday whether the USPS has stopped work on the project as ordered by the courts, as well as provide the names of those who worked on the project and the dates they were active. By September 8, he wants to see all records about the project.

Blumenthal told reporters: “The main takeaway for me is that the Postal Service has designed a system to disenfranchise millions of Americans. One third of all Americans cast their ballots by mail, and the USPS puts all of their votes at risk.”

The administration’s attack on elections is especially concerning considering the recent suggestions that Trump is spending most of his time on his legacy projects like the ballroom, leaving him largely unaware of what is going on in the administration. Nancy A. Youssef, Missy Ryan, and Michael Scherer of The Atlantic reported yesterday that when Army Secretary Dan Driscoll went directly to Trump with his concerns about what Hegseth is doing to the Army, Trump was surprised to learn “how many generals and other top officers had been fired, pushed out, or passed over for promotion under Hegseth” and “expressed concern about the deep cuts to the Army’s senior leadership.”

Driscoll resigned yesterday.

As for the plan to sabotage mail-in voting? Representative Joe Morelle (D-NY), the top-ranking Democrat on the House Committee on House Administration, which oversees the administration of federal elections, posted: “These whistleblower allegations are extraordinary. If Trump Administration officials knowingly built a system designed to prevent Americans from receiving their ballots, that is not election security. It is a betrayal of our Constitution and the American people.”

—

Notes:

https://www.politico.com/news/2026/08/31/supreme-court-white-house-ballroom-john-roberts-dissent-01057685

https://www.theatlantic.com/national-security/2026/08/driscoll-hegseth-military-resignation/688479/

Categories Cheating, Democracy, Disruption, Elections, Ethics, Evil, Fascism, Fraud, Lies, Republicans, Scandal, Trump

The Transgender Conundrum 

By dianeravitch
August 19, 2026 //
14

As a matter of principle, I believe in the “live and let live” way of life. So long as people aren’t hurting anyone else, their choices about how to live should be tolerated at least and respected at best. 

Governor Tim Walz used a memorable phrase that captures the same idea. “It’s none of your damn business!” 

That’s my response when Republicans whip up the public to hate or fear transgender people. 

Why do they do it? It’s a sure fire winner. It appeals to base instincts. (“How dare they flaunt society’s norms?”) They made it a big issue during the 2024 Presidential campaign.

But it’s overdone.

According to the Williams Institute at the UCLA School of Law, about 1% of the population over the age of 13 identifies as transgender. Or, 2.8 million people. 

I understand the outrage about biological males competing in women’s sports, most especially, sports where men have a physical advantage, like swimming or track and field.

But I do not understand why Trump and Hegseth have expelled members of the military who are transgender. Many of those who have been booted from the military are decorated veterans who have served their nation with courage and distinction. Some are high-ranking officers with medals and multiple commendations. 

I truly don’t understand why the military would expel officers or enlisted personnel who want to serve their nation and who are willing to risk their lives for our protection.

What does their sexual identity have to do with their ability to perform their duties? Does it give them an unfair advantage? I have not heard a convincing argument from Trump or Hegseth to justify their purge of transgender personnel from the military.

It seems to me that this is an open and shut case of bigotry, no different from discrimination based on religion, race, or gender. The transgender members of the military have been discharged because of who they are, not because of any dereliction of duty.

The Republican Party seems intent on banning the very existence of transgender people. In the states, Republican legislatures have passed laws mandating that there are only two biological genders, and you are whatever your birth certificate says. No matter what laws they pass or what executive orders Trump signs, transgender people are not going to disappear. But these official actions can make them miserable and ruin their lives.

A recent article by M. Gessen in The New York Times described the unnecessary harassment of transgender people in Kansas. There, transgender people must have their birth gender on their driver’s license. Why? What governmental purpose does this serve? None. 

For 1% of the population, this bifurcation is not true. A tiny percentage of people born male live as females. A tiny percentage of people born female live as males. This is who they are. 

Why not let them live the life they want? 

Categories Civil Rights, Cruelty, Democracy, Education Reform, Gender, Republicans, Trump

Heather Cox Richardson: Will the Rule of Law Survive Attorney General Todd Blanche?

By dianeravitch
August 17, 2026 //
2

Heather Cox Richardson is masterful at analyzing the important events of recent days and putting them into perspective. Trump now has firm control of the Justice Department, since his personal defense attorney has been confirmed as Attorney General of the United States. The department will brazenly reflect the President’s agenda and diligently persecute and prosecute his political enemies. Expect that the Justice Department will have a task force devoted to proving that Trump won the election of 2020 and another one seeking ways to exonerate and compensate the insurrectionists who stormed the U.S. Capitol on January 6, 2021.

After his confirmation, Blanche said that there were people who were absolutely harmed by a “weaponized” Department of Justice, and both he and Trump want to “make them whole” to compensate for their sufferings.

I responded on Twitter:

“Is it now legal to break into the U.S. Capitol, beat up police, and disrupt Congressional proceedings?”

At last Trump has his own Roy Cohn.

Richardson writes:

On Monday, August 10, Todd Blanche took the oath of office as attorney general, administered by federal appeals court judge Emil Bove, another of Trump’s defense lawyers before moving to the Department of Justice, where he was Blanche’s top deputy. In that capacity, CNN’s Hannah Rabinowitz recalled, he fired career prosecutors and pushed Trump’s takeover of the department.

Using Bove to swear in Blanche looked like a victory lap for the Trump team. Although the press was excluded, two other Trump loyalists, FBI director Kash Patel and White House deputy chief of staff Stephen Miller, attended Blanche’s swearing-in.

Retired conservative judge J. Michael Luttig told MS NOW: “Todd Blanche now becomes the symbol of Donald Trump’s corruption of the rule of law in America and the actual ruin of the Department of Justice of the United States. This is another shameful act of acquiescence, if not obeisance, by the Senate Republicans; they will bear this badge of shame the rest of their lives.

Never before in American history has an attorney general been confirmed who was as corrupt as Todd Blanche. The Department of Justice is already in shambles.”

“And,” Luttig added, “he will further ruin the Department of Justice.”

As soon as he took office, Blanche issued a memo dramatically expanding executive privilege, which he described as the authority of the president to “withhold certain sensitive information for the public good.” Executive privilege has enabled the president to shield conversations with key advisors from public scrutiny with the logic that a president must be able to get a wide range of advice, given freely, by those in the executive branch.

Now, though, the Department of Justice under Blanche says the president can shield “presidential communications with private advisers so long as the communications relate to official presidential decisionmaking.” The memo defines as a “private adviser” “anyone the President consults outside the Executive Branch.” As John Light of Talking Points Memo notes, this definition would enable the White House to defy congressional subpoenas for anyone to whom the president talks.

As Avery Lotz of Axios reports, Democrats had been planning to begin investigations of Trump’s corruption if they retake control of the House and/or the Senate. Recognizing that the White House would stonewall them, they intended to subpoena companies, college officials, and private citizens to testify. The memo, which is not legally binding but which indicates the administration’s position, would hamper that effort.

Lotz notes that the administration is already fighting a subpoena in a lawsuit filed by the American Bar Association that orders Trump’s senior personal lawyer, Boris Epshteyn, to testify about the deals the Trump administration struck with major law firms early in his second term.

Senator Adam Schiff (D-CA) wrote: “This latest opinion should be seen as a partisan measure to insulate the president and his corrupt activities from Congressional subpoenas when the majority flips.”

Thursday was the day that Judge Emmet Sullivan of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia held a status conference in the case of Phang v. Blanche. This is a lawsuit brought by independent journalist Katie Phang to force the Department of Justice to produce unredacted versions of documents from the Epstein files that she says were redacted against the explicit instructions in the Epstein Files Transparency Act. With that law, Congress ordered the Department of Justice to release all the files gathered by the FBI investigation into sex abuser Jeffrey Epstein, with redactions only to protect victims, no later than December 19, 2025.

Almost eight months later, the Department of Justice has refused to do so, probably producing about half the files, with many of the documents heavily redacted at the same time that it released some of the victim’s names, photographs, and identifying information.

As legal analyst Joyce White Vance explained in her Civil Discourse, Phang sued in April for access to an unredacted version of a handful of files, including emails about a “torture video” and sexual activity with girls, as well as notes from FBI interviews with a victim who claims Trump sexually assaulted her when she was 13 and materials in foreign languages, which the Department of Justice has not produced at all. She also asked the Department of Justice to explain why they made the redactions they did, something the law requires but the Justice Department has not done.

In late June, Sullivan granted Phang’s request.

But the Department of Justice under then–acting attorney general Todd Blanche, who interviewed Epstein associate Ghislaine Maxwell shortly before she was transferred to a far less restrictive prison that should have been inaccessible to a sex offender, did not turn over those documents.

So, in July, Sullivan ordered the government to turn over the unredacted documents to him so he could review them himself to see if the decision by the Department of Justice not to release them was correct. Once again, the Department of Justice refused. As for an explanation for why the department hadn’t explained the decisions to redact, the Justice Department lawyer told the judge the process was “underway” but couldn’t say when it would be done or why translating documents in foreign languages wasn’t practical. He claimed the materials the department is withholding are simply duplicates of things that have been released, but offered no proof of that assertion.

Ultimately, as Vance explains, Sullivan asked: ““So you’re saying I’ve learned everything I’m going to learn from the government?” The lawyer for the Department of Justice, Andrew Block, answered: “That’s right.”

Sullivan wasn’t satisfied. “The public has a right to know what the hell is going on in this case. The victims have a right to know. The court has a right to know. The law is still in full force and effect. The court is just ensuring compliance.”

To make it clear he was being reasonable, in expectation of a review from a higher court, Sullivan repeatedly told Block he was willing to work with the department, but warned that he had held prosecutors in contempt of court in the past. Sullivan gave Phang’s lawyers 10 days to propose an order to deal with the failure of the Department of Justice to comply with his orders to produce the files Phang requested.

The administration is also undermining another popular law. This week, under Trump, the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN) in the Treasury Department not only ended the registry Congress set up in 2021 over Trump’s veto to make shell companies identify their owners, but also destroyed all the data it has already collected.

FinCEN combats money laundering. Congress set up the Corporate Transparency Act after documents leaked to BuzzFeed News and the International Consortium of Investigative Journalists in 2020 found that between 1999 and 2017, banks had flagged more than $2 trillion in potentially laundered money, moved by criminals operating out of Russia, China, Iran, and Syria through shell companies. These are legal entities that don’t have physical plants or operations, but can be used for holding and moving money.

Shell companies also meant that the political system in the U.S. was awash in secrecy. “[I]t’s illegal for foreigners to contribute to our campaigns,” one Democrat reminded Congress in a speech for the bill, “but if you launder your money through a front company with anonymous ownership there is very little we can do to stop you.” One of the documents flagged how much Russian money was flowing into the U.S. in 2016 through Deutsche Bank.

The U.S. was the easiest place in the world for criminals to form an anonymous shell company enabling them to launder money, evade taxes, and engage in illegal payoff schemes—Trump’s fixer Michael Cohen used a shell company to pay off adult film actress Stormy Daniels to keep her from taking the story of her sexual encounter with Trump public before the 2016 election. So Congress passed the Corporate Transparency Act to undercut the shell companies that enabled money laundering in America.

The act required the owners of any company that was not otherwise overseen by the federal government (by filing taxes, for example, or through close regulation) to file a report that identifies each person associated with the company who either owns 25% or more of it or exercises substantial control over it. That report, including name, birthdate, address, and an identifying number, would go to FinCEN. The measure also increased penalties for money laundering and streamlined cooperation between banks and foreign law enforcement authorities.

The plan was to pull the rug out from both domestic and international criminals that take advantage of shell companies to hide from investigators. The measure passed on a bipartisan basis; then-senator Marco Rubio of Florida, now secretary of state, co-sponsored it, calling it the “most significant anti-corruption and money laundering law in decades.” 

Now the Treasury Department says it will not collect the information the law requires, raising the question of whether the Trump administration is openly refusing to implement a law.

Categories Corruption, Cruelty, Democrats, Education Reform, Funding, Republicans, Resistance
« Older Entries